I had a situation where a Nevada State Trooper crossed the center line on a corner, I had to swerve onto the shoulder and threw him the bird in the process(His truck was very dirty and had a really small light.) He turned around caught me waithing on the shoulder standing by my vehicle. He was verbally abusive and inappropriate. I got statements from the other 4 guys with me about the incident and sent a letter of my own to the state of Nevada. He was placed on unpaid leave for 2 weeks and had a formal reprimand placed in his personel file. I still have a copy of that reprimand somewhere.

If you are on public property and are not doing anything wrong, I would send a letter to the chief of whatever department is involved, with copies to my state and federal representatives as well as the Mayor if it is in a town that has one. I can understand the parents being concerned, but that does not make infringing on your rights okay.

I would consult with a local attorney to find the best way to resolve this.
Definately worth paying for an hour of attorney time.

Sadly, if you continue to hang around that park, you will be viewed with distrust. If anything ever happened to one of those kids, you would likely be the first suspect. They go to your house, confiscate your computer, find the grid girls thread you downloaded, discover one of the models was only 17, so now they have a suspect whose computer was found loaded with kiddie porn!

Do you really want all that attention?

And instead of getting advice and support from this forum, everyone would be posting calls for your castration and slow torture. :rolleyes:

You made the mistake of talking to kids. Don't you dare do that again!

What a world we live in.

I'm not at all comfortable with most of Copper's advice. A government does not exist, apart from its citizens. You own it. Yes, a municipality can restrict usage, but those restrictions would need to apply evenly, and it is not within a police officer's authority to make those decisions "on the fly." I would agree with his advice to not directly challenge the officer's directive by simply thwarting it. But I would MOST CERTAINLY make a good deal of noise. I'd write the letters. I'd attend a City Council meeting. I'd be a big fat blip on everyone's radar screen and once I verified that it is a public park and that usage limitations would need to be posted in order to apply to you, then I'd use the park in every available, legal fashion. By that time, the written record would be crystal clear that you are visible, above board, that you have inquired, that you are not hiding anything and that you understand your rights. This vision of government being Big Brother has GOT to be debunked, in the minds of citizens who think gubmint is "them," and in the minds of police officers who think it's theirs.

When I first bought my home, I was greeted by the home owner's association rep. I was the last house on a publicly maintained road.

Along side my home was a "private" road that fed off of the public road to an association of 18 homes.....the rep stated that I had no rights to the road and any use was prohibited. A little research found out that the rep was wrong, the city was wrong and I prevailed in using it to access the back of my property and ultimately built a garage up behind my home.

Do some research, write letters. Don't let bullies push you around.

Seriously though...

There's no reason to hit this head on with anger from day 1. Maybe both of those cops have kids and as mentioned guy in biker shorts with a hatchet might concern ME a bit if my son was talking to him...

Go down, talk to the cops and/or their boss and see what's up. What can it hurt. If they are *********s in private, then you really know where you stand. Decide then if you want to fight it or not... ..and decide then if it's worth the potential hassle. Maybe they ARE on a power trip and will make your life difficult. Cops represent a slice of the general population and just like there are good people and bad people, much remains the same with cops...

I'm guessing there's a chance that if you show up there and talk to them, they'll tell you why they made a decision, and perhaps even come around...

Uh....where do you think the government gets the money for the local tax base? The citizens indeed pay for the land and for the employees. Therefore, you have a right to participate in deciding how that land is used.

We also pay the cops' salaries.:D

To the extent that copper says we dont, technically, "own" it, from a legal standpoint he is right. I meant from a more abstract standpoint all things public are owned by, well, the public.

My point is the citizen living nearest a public property should not get to dictate how it is used any more than all the others who have paid for it.

Any thread of this type, whether it be a situation like this or someone stopped for speeding, always illicits an interesting and varied debate.

"Copper, you certainly offer an interesting perspective on this. A Canadian perspective, however, judging from your location. "
Again, an assumption based on little knowledge of the facts. I am a Canadian police officer, however I travel to the US frequently throughout the year on contract and train US law enforcement officers.

"Police officers here simply CANNOT restrict any one individual citizen's right to access a public place."
They most certainly CAN and DO. Simply ask your local agency whether their officers have the right to remove an individual from a public place when deemed necessary for whatever reason. It does happen and will continue to happen. We see examples of it everyday in our lives and on the news.

"They simply do not make up their own on the fly in this country. Maybe in Canada, but not here."
The very nature of the job requires the majority of decisions police make to occur "on the fly". Time is great, if you have it, but in reality, this isn't the case. Canada or the US, it's the same job at it's root.

"Yes, a municipality can restrict usage, but those restrictions would need to apply evenly, and it is not within a police officer's authority to make those decisions "on the fly." "
I see no indication that anything has been done here which would not have applied evenly if it were someone other than Bill in the same circumstances. No implications of racism, targetting or vendettas.

"A government does not exist, apart from its citizens. You own it. "
"This vision of government being Big Brother has GOT to be debunked, in the minds of citizens who think gubmint is "them," and in the minds of police officers who think it's theirs."
Two completely contradictory statements in the same argument. On the one hand, you imply Bill owns the park because the government exists only because of it's citizens. However you find part of the problem to be citizens who think that the gov't is "them". These simply cannot stand together.

Long and short, Bill's in a quandry. The debate's over what to do now. Lots of good advice has been given and the common thread seems to be approach it in a civil manner and speak with the officers involved. If they turn out to be unreasonable at that point, reassess your position and take your next step.

Again, my $0.02
(Which to Jeff Higgins would be about $0.016 USD and therefore not as valuable.) :D

So be it.
Jim

i like the advice to show up at the police station. bring a map. just to clarify things. then ask what law you are violating by being there. ask for specifics.

And more specifically, what it is he is alleged to have done while he was there.

I'm all for rights, but there is too far:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1132772975.jpg

For what little it's worth, I wear spandex shorts, shave my legs, and have no shame. No, I am not pictured above. :p SmileWavy

Hey dummy. They thought you were a pervert lurking in the woods waiting for your chance to talk to the prey... I mean Kids.
Go from work.. in the Porsche ... nice clothes.. maybe suit, and talk to the officers supervisor.
Ride the damn bike.

Copper, again I find your perspective interesting. And valuable, even at the current exchange rate. I think the core issue we are addressing here is just where a citizen's rights end and a cop's authority starts. I suspect there may possibly be at least two things that color your perspective a little differently than the rest of our's.

I think that the line is probably drawn differently in the States than it is in Canada. Despite your exposure to fellow LEO's here in the States, I'm not sure the differences would be readily apparent until you tried to push that line here, in the States. Some of our own cops do not understand where that line is drawn, like the ones that hassled Bill.

The second factor would be that, well, you are... a cop. It is not uncommon to find your bretheren with a somewhat over-inflated estimation of their authority. Like these two cops. We have a legal system in place here that seems to have to continually remind them of their place; our rights vs. their authority.

Yes cops can and will remove people from public places, at the cops' sole discretion. In this country, there are legal ramifications for doing so. The cops better be damn sure their reason will hold up in court. It can mean their jobs and their livelyhoods, quite literally. If they are simply trying to throw their weight around, I feel it is a citizen's duty to fight back.

Yes we do expect them to make decisions on the fly. I think you are confusing the issue here. Restricting citizens' access to public places, or other restrictions on their behavior, is the province of the law as passed by our processes to do so in general, and court orders against specific citizens on an individual basis. It is the cops' job to enforce the law and these court orders. Not to make up their own on the fly. That is what these cops were effectively doing - making up law on the spot and pretending they have that authority. They do not. They should be challenged if they think they do.

Yeah, complain to the dumb cops supervisor, and get a formal complaint put on their records. Enough complaints overtime (because theye are unsuitable for the job), and you'll get them fired.

Jeff,

I would have to lean in your direction. Not sure if Copper has a different set of rules in the GWN but my experience is that if a citizen is not doing something illegal (public drunkeness etc) out in the open that removing them will result in problems when its taken to court.

Sure hope that the police are not making up the rules as they go, otherwise they will be getting a unpaid vacation in the future. It sure seems like their actions in this case are not valid and I would go to the police station and have a talk with their superiors.

Joe A

A very calm and reasonable answer, Copper. But if you decide you want to escalate, you might find this image handy:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1132776045.jpg

Jeff, in regards to coloring (or as we spell it up here colouring) my perspective by being a cop, I refer you to my initial post which contained the following;

"As a police officer, I can honestly say that there are good and bad in every bunch. I've met some fellow cops I wouldn't trust, nor would I rely on or call competent. I've also met those on power trips. They do exist, but there's an equal number of those if not more who don't wear uniforms, and I meet them daily. We all do."

Those who know me here, know that I am the first to acknowledge any clear wrongdoing on the part of my brethren.

After all, I may have a Pcar, but I still appreciate the luxury of my Lincoln. I have no problems seeing different sides.

But you have to acknowledge that you are making assumptions when judging their "over-inflated estimation of their authority". We do not know what information they had been given, so neither of us can properly gauge what authority they were acting under. If any.

I will completely agree with the statements that a cop cannot indiscriminately prohibit someone from a public place without just cause. This would simply be communism.

But, it seems that they were given cause in this instance, and the abuse of the facts falls on the citizens who complained, and in Bill's own words "freaked out" and not the cops. They acted on information provided. The validity of the information is what comes to task, not the required subsequent action of the cop.

If I were to report that Bill hit me while I walked through that forest and he told me to get off his bike path, the cops would have to investigate. It's their duty, and we would fault them for not doing so. They only have the info I have provided, and have no idea I am lying. If I've made it look convincing, they'll deal with Bill appropriately, and Bill is screwed. No different than these people freaking out for whatever reason and telling the cops they don't want Bill around their kids cause they're scared.
(supposition on my part of their actual direction)

When a drunk driver hits a person, we don't blame the car for the input it was given do we?

I love this stuff. We could go back and forth for hours. The many views and perceptions we all have is what makes the world so interesting.

That's it till tomorrow. Off to work. Can't wait to harrass some innocent, law abiding citizens minding their own business. :D

Jim

Copper, you seem reasonable and mature, and have made some helpful and accurate remarks here. And I have a great deal of respect for the men in blue, generally. I'm putty in their hands when they are doing their jobs, and I appreciate their courage, their professionalism and their great challenge. And the important service they provide to our communities.

I have to agree with those who suspect the officer in question was overstepping his boundaries. I suspect this was an authoritative-sounding bluff. If someone is going to be banned from a public park, there will have to be a reason beyond some police officer's directive. We have courts for this. And it would be interesting to hear the officer's rationale for requesting thos fellow be banned from the park. If it is nothing more than a neighbor's fear and complaint, and the possibility that maybe the fellow might perhaps do something wrong......then I think the fellow's access to the park would be affirmed. We don't restrict peoples' freedoms here in the US according to what we think maybe they might perhaps at some point possibly do.

Oh, and I don't see a contradiction between my remarks about who owns the government. Some folks in my country fail to understand their ownership of our public process. They consider gubmint to be "them." Government is by the people, of the people and for the people. At least in my country it is. I just wish more Americans would understand that and participate.

No one said Police Officers cant lie to you or deceive you, something they will try to do to those who dont know their rights. The best way to protect yourself is to know your rights or sadly in todays world get a lawyer who does.